Since a vote in the U.S. Senate is coming up soon for the
Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) James Dobson’s June, 2006,
‘Citizen’ magazine is almost entirely focused on this topic.
On page 21, Citizen attempts “Answering the skeptics”. Argument
1 is: “Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the
U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every American be treated
equally under the law.”
The argument is improperly phrased because amendments do indeed
change the original. *If* it had been illegal to discriminate
against gays all this time and now is the time the 2/3 super
majority adds an amendment to make it legal to discriminate
against gays this is the way it’s done. In a legal sense the
proponents of the MPA are admitting discrimination against gays
violates the U.S. Constitution in it’s current form.
Another point is missing in the way Citizen defines the debate.
In Citizen’s defense I believe this is a slight-of-hand from the
‘gay’ side which most liberals in general use. But the truth is
that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee that every American
be treated equally under the law. The right to liberty and
pursuit of happiness doesn’t apply to the law breaker. That’s
why we -supposedly- have prisons.
Citizen’s answer skirts the entire issue. It avoids the
accusation by retelling the long history of cultural acceptable
heterosexual marriage. Citizen concludes by saying “marriage
predates …the Bible itself”. Although true I can’t help but
think this is an attempt to distance this intentional
discrimination against gays for religious reasons. In summary,
by avoiding the argument altogether, all Citizen really said is
that there has been a long history of discrimination against
gays!
Turning the page I read this: “What’s the number-one reason
America needs a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Can
anyone say ‘Lawrence’?”. So, the real argument is now defined.
Is it legal to discriminate against gays via current marriage law
when gay behavior is law-abiding behavior? When America used to
have sodomy law there was no argument about “marriage” being
sanctioned by the state for adults of the same sex.
Discrimination was not the issue because consensual sex of same
sex partners was an illegal behavior and thus there was no
U.S. Constitutional “right” beyond that. Taking away
the illegal nature of homosexual sex is what exposes current
heterosexual marriage law as discriminatory against gays.
“Do Gays really Want ‘marriage’?” Citizen answers this question
on pages 28 and 29. They present useful data in support of the
‘average’ answer – a resounding ‘NO’. They also conclude
correctly about what it is all these gays really are fighting
for: an abolition of marriage.
Does Citizen really embrace the idea that civil law can be
religiously neutral? They close with truth everyone (including
gays) know. The gay’s “deepest desire is that homosexual
behavior would no longer be sin.” It is the Christian’s duty to
“reflect God’s heart on the matter and commit to fully engage
those in the public arena who seek to declare ‘good’ that which
God calls ‘evil’.”
Citizen is straddling the fence. On one side they embrace
secular humanism’s tenent that civil law can and must be
religiously neutral but on the other they know the Bible
says otherwise. This is why their MPA argument is weak.